from the archiving-history-is-great dept

If you weren't under a social media-less rock a few weeks ago, you hopefully heard about the Internet Archive releasing over 2,000 MS-DOS video games, playable in the browser. As I noted to someone on Twitter, it was like half of my childhood on the screen. What I found truly amazing was that with every excited Twitter or Facebook comment I saw, it was about a different game. For me, it was things like Oregon Trail, Pole Position, Lode Runner and Championship Baseball (and also some college memories of avoiding studying by playing Scorched Earth -- hey, at least it sorta felt like I was learning physics). But for others it was something entirely different. Each person seemed to latch onto their own moment in history (and a new chance to procrastinate or waste time by reliving that experience).

This, of course, was only the latest in an ongoing effort by the Internet Archive, led by Jason Scott (who has been involved in all sorts of archival efforts of internet content and video games and made a documentary about text adventure games called Get Lamp). Andy Baio has a great post up discussing this work and how important it is that it's being done by the Internet Archive, rather than a giant corporation. As he notes, while Google used to really focus on similar archival projects, in the recent past, it seems to have let that focus fade, which is quite disappointing.

Of course, in discussing the possible reasons why Google's archival efforts have stagnated, Baio tosses out a few suggested reasons, including the lack of profitability, but also, the potential legal liability. After all, Google is still fighting in court about the Google book scanning project, and the focus of that project seems much more about pushing people to buy books, rather than being able to do useful searches through that huge corpus of knowledge.

Baio is (quite reasonably) thrilled that the Internet Archive has been willing and able to step up, and notes that the video game archive shows how Archive.org is a lot more than just saving old websites: it's about preserving our cultural history.

But, other than that one offhand mention of the risk of legal liability to explain Google's dropping the ball on similar stuff, Baio leaves out the related issue of copyright and the DMCA (which he knows about all too well from personal experience). This isn't a fault of Baio's article, he's just focused on something else. But the copyright aspect is really important -- especially right now.

That's because the main reason why the Internet Archive is allowed to do this kind of thing is because it was lucky enough to get one of the semi-arbitrary DMCA triennial review exemptions that lets them break old DRM for the purpose of archiving vintage software. But, even then, it's not entirely clear that what the Internet Archive is doing is fully protected today. Furthermore, as we saw a few years ago with unlocking mobile phones, the Librarian of Congress can simply delete those exemptions on a whim.

And, right now, we're in the middle of the DMCA exemption process yet again, with a bunch of requests on tap -- including an important one from the EFF [pdf] to allow such activities:

Proposed Class: Literary works in the form of computer programs, where circumvention is
undertaken for the purpose of restoring access to single-player or multiplayer video gaming on
consoles, personal computers or personal handheld gaming devices when the developer and its
agents have ceased to support such gaming.

Baio's article talks about how projects like the one at the Internet Archive are magical in preserving history and giving us access to "all of computing history... accessible from a single click." This is incredibly important -- but copyright law is standing in its way. This isn't about "piracy" in any real sense. The games and software being discussed are not being sold anywhere. The hardware that it worked on is long gone. This is about preserving our cultural history -- something that industry appears to have no interest in doing, in part because copyright law itself makes it so risky.

If you think things like this are important too, I also suggest heading over to the Digital Right to Repair site where they've made a really easy form for you to share your thoughts with the Copyright Office as it considers the latest exemption requests. The Copyright Office also has its own form, but it's government-level cumbersome. The Digital Right to Repair site is much easier to use. It has some pre-selected text for the various exemptions being debated, but also (very easily) allows you to write your own thoughts (which you should).

One of the key factors in the decision over what to exempt and what not to exempt is a demonstrated "market need" and you can help make the case by sharing your story with the Copyright Office.

from the good-day-to-announce-this dept

This is Copyright Week, in which various people supporting more reasonable copyright laws highlight some of the problems with existing laws and important concepts that should be in copyright reform efforts. Today's topic is "you bought it, you own it," -- a concept that is often held back due to bad copyright laws. A few months ago, a bill was introduced in Congress called YODA -- the You Own Devices Act -- which would allow the owner of computer hardware to sell the devices with the software on it without creating a copyright mess. It was a small attempt to take back basic property rights from copyright law which often stamps out property rights. Hopefully, a similar bill will show up in the new Congress, and become law. Even better would be for copyright law to actually recognize true property rights, rather than limiting them at nearly every turn.

One of the biggest attacks on property rights and ownership is Section 1201 of the DMCA, better known as the Anti-Circumvention clause, that says it's against the law to circumvent any "technological measures" that were designed to block copying -- even if the underlying use is non-infringing. That is, if you break technological measures to access content that is not covered by copyright at all, you're still violating the law. This is the law that has made DRM so powerful, and which regularly removes your right to own what you bought. It's a blatant attack on basic property rights, and (even worse) has copyright maximalists pretending that their removal of property rights is actually a move in favor of property rights.

Thus, it's great to see the announcement today that Cory Doctorow is returning to EFF to help with its new Apollo 1201 Project, a plan to eradicate DRM in our lifetime.

"Apollo was a decade-long plan to do something widely viewed as impossible: go to the moon. Lots of folks think it's impossible to get rid of DRM. But it needs to be done," said Doctorow. "Unless we can be sure that our computers do what we tell them, and don't have sneaky programs designed to take orders from some distant corporation, we can never trust them. It's the difference between 'Yes, master' and 'I CAN'T LET YOU DO THAT DAVE.'"

Doctorow has been speaking out on this issue for years. If you haven't watched his 2012 talk at the Chaos Communication Congress on the "war on general purpose computing," it's well worth your time. It's a discussion I've gone back to many times in the two and a half years since he first gave that talk. It highlights not only the absurdity of DRM in general, but why this is an issue that goes well beyond just the idea of locking down some content to protect an obsolete business model. As his speech noted, this is a battle over the right to actually own your computer and not to open it up to censorship and surveillance. The fight over DRM on content was just the beginning:

And personally, I can see that there will be programs that run on general purpose computers and peripherals that will even freak me out. So I can believe that people who advocate for limiting general purpose computers will find receptive audience for their positions. But just as we saw with the copyright wars, banning certain instructions, or protocols, or messages, will be wholly ineffective as a means of prevention and remedy; and as we saw in the copyright wars, all attempts at controlling PCs will converge on rootkits; all attempts at controlling the Internet will converge on surveillance and censorship, which is why all this stuff matters. Because we've spent the last 10+ years as a body sending our best players out to fight what we thought was the final boss at the end of the game, but it turns out it's just been the mini-boss at the end of the level, and the stakes are only going to get higher.

from the the-system-is-broken dept

If you follow the history of copyright law, it's truly about taking a ridiculous duct-tape approach to dealing with changes in technology. Basically, each time a new technology comes along that shows how the old laws are obsolete, lobbyists run to Congress and some sort of change is duct-taped on, often haphazardly, with little concern for either the unintended consequences or exploring how broken the system is in the first place. That actually makes things worse, because you have all these random "add-ons" that make copyright law make even less sense. When radio came along, we got some duct tape. When cable TV came along, we got some duct tape. When the internet came along, we got some duct tape. And not all of it made sense. There are still big fights going on today as everyone tries to sort out how the radio duct tape applies to the internet. And, of course, the Aereo fight was partly about whether or not the cable duct tape applies to the internet (leading to the Supreme Court turning duct tape into a duck).

We've discussed at length the ridiculous process by which cell phone unlocking was briefly declared legal under copyright law... and then magically became illegal due to a decision by the Librarian of Congress to rescind an exemption to the DMCA. After over 100,000 people signed a petition asking for it to be fixed, the White House told Congress to fix it -- but in true duct-tape fashion, decided that it should just add on some more duct tape by saying changes should be made to telecom regulations, rather than targeting the root of the problem: Section 1201 of the DMCA, better known as the anti-circumvention clause.

As we noted recently, after a year-and-a-half of a mix of fighting over this and a whole lot of nothing, the Senate came up with a compromise that isn't horrible, but doesn't do very much other than make it legal to unlock your phones again. The full Senate has now approved this. Of course, earlier this year, the House passed a dangerously bad bill to pretend that it was dealing with the problem as well, but it actually had some bad problems. The two houses will have to bring the bills into alignment now, and hopefully the Senate bill wins out.

However, as Tim Lee over at Vox points out, this is a huge missed opportunity because it's Congress taking that same duct tape approach yet again. Rather than actually fixing the underlying problem (a broken Section 1201), Congress has decided to pass a bill that duct tapes on "except for unlocking mobile phones... for now." This isn't surprising. Actually fixing Section 1201 would be a massive process that would lead to quite an insane fight from Hollywood (they love the anti-circumvention provision, because it allows them to DRM everything and create controls for themselves beyond what everything else in copyright law allows -- such as taking away fair use).

The other big stumbling block is that, thanks to bogus international trade agreements, doing something so simple as to actually fix this broken part of the DMCA that possibly made cell phone unlocking illegal... would likely violate more than half a dozen trade agreements. While Congress has the power to ignore those trade agreements if it wants, lobbyists love to go apeshit about anything that might "violate international agreements," as if suddenly Europe won't do business with us any more because we dare to let people unlock their mobile phones.

Either way, this one issue does a lot to show why copyright law continues to be such a mess. It's just a hack process, which new technology routes around... and Congress' response is just to duct tape on the next mess to "fix" the mistake, rather than look at the underlying reasons why the law is outdated and problematic. Hopefully you'll be able to unlock your mobile phones soon without worrying about breaking the law -- but that won't be true for other things, like modifying your video game console or other types of electronic devices. A sane world would get to the root of the problem and fix it, but this is Congress we're talking about, and no one thinks that's a sane world.

from the let's-try-this-again dept

A guy named Michael Moroney has taken to Roll Call, a popular publication for politicians, to argue that we don't need to allow mobile phone unlocking, as is currently being debated in Congress, after over 100,000 people signed a petition in favor of it and the White House came out supporting such unlocking rights as well. I'm not sure where Moroney got his information, but it's almost entirely factually incorrect, which is quite incredible. Derek Khanna has a very thorough point-by-point debunking, but here's a shorter look at some of Moroney's statements that really don't make any sense. After reviewing that background, along with one of the bills that has been introduced, Moroney jumps into the meat of his argument:

Despite the best of intentions, the very innovation that some members of Congress, the White House and presumably consumers who signed the petition claim they want to protect would actually be hampered by allowing consumers and third parties to unlock their cellphones. The DMCA is supposed to prevent digital piracy by making it illegal to disable digital rights management software, and it applies to the device locks that carriers put on cellphones — primarily to prevent phones they sell from being used on other carrier networks.

First off, it's not intentional that the DMCA applies to the locks on mobile phones. Basically, the phone providers recognized the law provided them with a backdoor way of locking in customers, and used it. The intention of the DMCA was to stop copyright infringement, not phone locking. That it was eventually used that way is because the authors of section 1201, the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA, drafted it terribly, opening up lots of opportunities for tech companies -- including ink cartridge makers, garage door openers, and mobile phone makers -- to abuse the law not to stop copyright infringement, but to be anti-competitive.

When tech companies spend billions of dollars on research and development, they have to recoup those costs and make a profit to stay on the cutting edge of innovation.

One of these things has nothing to do with the other. Just because a phone maker needs to recoup its money on R&D has nothing to do with whether or not it should have the right to forbid unlocking by using a twisted interpretation of copyright law. There are lots of ways to recoup your investment, such as by selling a product at a reasonable price above what you made it for.

One of the ways they do this is by entering exclusive agreements with certain wireless carriers. AT&T, for example, dominated the smartphone market for years because of its exclusive contract to distribute Apple’s iPhone in the United States. AT&T paid Apple an exceptionally high subsidy on top of the consumer purchase prices, but the company made quite a return on its investment. In subsidizing more expensive phones, AT&T could sell more expensive data plans to its customers.

Phone subsidies are really a red herring here. Even with phone unlocking, mobile carriers can (and do!) offer phone subsidies. In the meantime, carriers like T-Mobile have already realized phone subsidies are bad, and actually mean consumers pay more in the long run. But, again, this has nothing to do with unlocking. Most subsidies are held in place via contractual agreements and early termination fees that have nothing to do with phone unlocking.

Now that cellphone manufactures and cellphone carriers have more protection for their intellectual property, they can recoup their research-and-development investment more quickly and, hence, spend more on developing new technologies in the future. It also ensures that most major carriers will continue to offer subsidized phones to their customers — increasing consumer choice.

Except, this isn't true. None of this is about "protecting intellectual property." It's about trying to keep people from switching carriers when their contracts are up. And for all his talk about "increasing consumer choice," that's simply incorrect. Being able to unlock your phone, and go to a different provider once there's no contract, clearly increases consumer choice. If someone doesn't want to buy a new phone, but wants to switch carriers, unlocking means they don't have to spend on a costly new phone, but can continue to use their existing phone.

from the are-they-serious dept

Today in the House Judiciary Committee, they're holding hearings concerning cell phone unlocking, focused specifically on Rep. Goodlatte's proposed bill, which actually seems to be the weakest of all the proposed bills. It doesn't offer a permanent fix. It doesn't fully tackle the problem. Actually, it barely tackles the problem, and serves only to punt the issue down the road. That is, it would "repeal" the rejection of the exemption to the DMCA for cell phone unlocking by the Librarian of Congress (if you don't recall, the whole fight is because the DMCA ridiculously makes it illegal to circumvent "technology protection measures" even if the reason has nothing to do with infringing on someone's copyright, but every three years, the Librarian of Congress gets to issue "exemptions"), but would allow the Librarian of Congress to revisit the issue at the next triennial review. It does nothing to address the actual problem, which is a ridiculous and broken anti-circumvention clause, section 1201 of the Copyright Act.

The hearing has four witnesses... and all are more or less lining up behind Goodlatte's weak bill, some for better reasons than others. A few others haven't been invited to speak, but have submitted written testimony as well. I'll cover the remarks of the four speakers going in order of "reasonable" to "ridiculous" followed by two of the interesting written submissions.

First up, is testimony from George Slover of Consumer's Union. He highlights, correctly, how important mobile phone unlocking is for consumers, and points out that it's a demonstration of "the harm the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) are causing consumers." He also points out that this issue should be a reason to explore more deeply the role of the anti-circumvention provisions found in Section 1201. He does offer a qualified support for the bill, but lists out a bunch of other changes that he thinks really should be added to the bill, to further allow consumer freedom and innovation around unlocked phones to thrive. The basic rights of consumers is important, and Slover definitely highlights that.

Next up, is testimony from Steven Berry from the Competitive Carriers Association, who have also been fighting hard to allow phone unlocking. There, the message is obvious. The competitive carriers provide greater innovation in terms of business models, service plans, etc., but much of that is enabled by allowing unlocking of phones, so users can switch from big network providers to a competitive carrier, without having to buy a new phone. This testimony focuses on the importance of unlocking specifically, and doesn't touch on the bigger issue of fixing the anti-circumvention provision. It's narrowly focused.

Then we get to testimony from Mike Altschul from CTIA, which is basically the trade group for the big mobile carriers. Their argument is basically "hey, we let you unlock your phones if you ask, so there's no need for this exemption." It claims, ridiculously, that carriers need to "lock" their phones so they can provide subsidies to make phones cheaper. But that's clearly not true. Carriers that subsidize their phones also have contractual early termination fees, which solve the subsidy issue, so the claim that they need the locks to protect the subsidies makes no sense. They already have the ability to do so contractually -- and they use it. There's no need for them to rely on digital locks and a broken copyright law to further protect something they already have through contract. Furthermore, the argument that they already allow unlocking is simply not correct. They allow unlocking in certain situations, but not all, and people have run into issues such as when travelling abroad, and just wanting to put in a foreign sim card.

And, finally on the spoken testimony, we come to testimony from Steve Metalitz. Metalitz is the MPAA and RIAA's go to guy for writing the laws they like in DC. ACTA, SOPA, TPP have his fingerprints all over them, and he's the epitome of an extreme maximalist. There's nothing about greater copyright protection that he finds problematic, and he always supports expansions. I have no idea why he's a witness at this panel, since he has nothing to do with phone unlocking, and while he has advocated for the MPAA/RIAA's extreme interests during DMCA exemption reviews, he officially took "no position" on cell phone unlocking.

His testimony is basically a spirited, ridiculous, and flat-out misleading "defense" of Section 1201 and the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, which he seems to credit as being the reason why we have any entertainment at all online today. He claims that 1201 is "one of the most critical provisions" and says that it, specifically, has been "critical" (he likes that word) to the entertainment industry embracing the online world. This is wrong. First, the industry was dragged kicking and screaming into the online world, not willingly. And the anti-circumvention provisions have been nearly entirely useless in protecting their works, nearly all of which are available DRM-free from unauthorized sources. On the music front, they've already ditched DRM, and others will likely follow.

Metalitz then claims that 1201 is critical to the success of cloud computing, which is also wrong and ridiculous. It's wrong because what protects cloud computing is not copyright law, but good computer security. If cloud providers are hanging their hat on a copyright infringement claim if someone breaks into their network, they're doing it wrong. It's also ridiculous, because it tries to pretend that the tech industry is supportive of section 1201, when many find it quite problematic.

After that, he points out that 1201 was such a good idea that "scores of other countries have followed." What he leaves out is that those "scores of other countries" were pressured by the US government, in large part because of international treaties that (oooh, look at that) were strongly "supported" by Metalitz. It's quite a feat to claim that other countries supported your idea when they did so under pressure from the US government, using points highlighted by the RIAA/MPAA's own representatives.

When it came to written testimony, we'll highlight two key ones. First is from the Library Copyright Alliance, which says what really needed to be said: that section 1201 of the DMCA is ridiculous, broken and in need of real reform:

Most significantly, the Section 1201 rulemaking is an exercise in legal theatre. All
the parties to the rulemaking—those seeking an exemption, the rights holders, and the
Copyright Office staff--acknowledge that it is unclear whether the rulemaking has any
practical effect. This is because Section 1201(a)(1)(C) authorizes the Librarian of
Congress to adopt exemptions to the Section 1201(a)(1)(A) prohibition on the act of
circumventing a technological protection measure (TPM), but not to the Section
1201(a)(2) prohibition on the development and distribution of the technologies necessary
to perform the circumvention. In other words, after receiving an exemption, a person
might be legally permitted to perform the act of circumvention, but might have no lawful
way of obtaining the technology necessary to perform that act.

Similarly, all the parties understand that what occurs inside the hearing room has
no connection to the world outside it. In the last three rulemaking cycles, LCA has joined
with other groups in seeking exemptions for educators and students to circumvent the
TPMs on DVDs for the purpose of making educational uses of film clips. The rights
holders know that the uses we seek will not harm their market in any way. They also
know that whether the exemption is granted or rejected will have absolutely no impact on
the level of infringement. This is because the technology necessary to circumvent the
TPMs on DVDs is widely available on the Internet and easy to use. Nonetheless, the
rights holders reflexively oppose the exemption or seek to narrow it so that it would be
unusable. As a result, the discussions in the rulemaking descend into hyper-technical
issues such as the quality of video necessary for effective pedagogy in different kinds of
courses.

Moreover, in two rulemaking cycles, witnesses from the Motion Picture
Association of America (MPAA) demonstrated how a person could camcord a film off of
a high definition television. MPAA was attempting to show that a relatively high quality
recording could be made without circumventing a technological protection measure.
What it succeeded in proving, however, was the contradiction underlying its position. If
one could obtain a high quality copy without circumvention, why use technological
protection measures in the first place, and why should their circumvention be unlawful?
Moreover, the MPAA was demonstrating how to camcord a film precisely at the same
time it was asking Congress, state governments, and foreign legislatures to impose
criminal penalties on camcording.

There's more to it, but that's a good snippet. It's a shame that this more detailed view wasn't included as a part of the actual hearing.

Similarly, we've got Derek Khanna's submission which he discussed here yesterday. Khanna's submission, alone among all of the testimony, actually delves into the details of what the actual problems are and how allowing people to actually own what they buy (what a concept!) is a good idea for consumers, for innovation and for business. It's fairly comprehensive, and again, his voice would have been quite a useful addition to the actual hearing.

Banning technologies is an extreme step by government, a truly incredible reach of
Federal power, and I would petition this body to be very careful in continuing to delegate the
authority of what technologies to ban to a quasi-regulatory agent when, in these and many other
circumstances, there is no compelling governmental interest.

This legislation, as currently crafted, does not reflect the input of the White House,
former FCC Chairman, FCC Commissioner, scholars or outside groups such as R Street and
FreedomWorks. Our campaign was about actually solving this problem and restoring a free
market. Minor changes to this legislation would ensure that H.R. 1123 actually solves the
problem it intends to address by permanently legalizing unlocking and allowing for businesses to
sell the technology to consumers. Overall, our contention is that given the enormous benefits that
phone unlocking provides to the consumer, phone unlocking should be made permanently lawful
for the consumer to use, industry to develop and marketers to sell.

Hopefully, Congress will recognize that punting this and pretending there's nothing wrong with section 1201 is the wrong way to go, but given the situation, it doesn't seem like those in Congress are even open to considering that issue at this time.

from the well-needed dept

While there was a lot of talk after the White House agreed with an awful lot of people that mobile phone unlocking should be legal, there's been little real action. Part of the problem might be that the White House suggested that this could be fixed via telecom law, when the whole issue had nothing to do with telecom law, but the broken anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA, also known as 17 USC 1201. While Congress did put forth a bunch of bills, they were all lacking, and none seemed to really tackle the underlying problem: 17 USC 1201 is completely broken. It makes circumventing a technical protection measure a form of infringement, even if the circumvention has nothing to do with actual copyright infringement. Furthermore, it makes it illegal to "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof," that is primarily designed for circumventing digital locks even if the end use is not infringing.

Thankfully, Rep. Zoe Lofgren has finally introduced a real reform bill that tries to tackle this issue, along with Rep. Thomas Massie, Rep. Anna Eshoo and Rep. Jared Polis. The bill, called the Unlocking Technology Act of 2013, changes the law to make it clear: if you circumvent some sort of digital lock for a reason that has nothing to do with infringement, it would no longer be illegal. Basically, it would add the following:

It shall not be a violation of this section to circumvent a technological measure in connection with a work protected under this title if the purpose of such circumvention is to engage in a use that is not an infringement of copyright under this title.

Similarly, circumvention tools that have primarily non-infringing uses would also be legalized. It would still be illegal to do that big list of things above if the intent is to infringe, but merely creating the tools for non-infringing purposes would be legalized. Thus, tools for unlocking mobile phone, and the act of unlocking mobile phones, would be legal.

The bill also has two other key pieces. First, it makes it clear that it is not copyright infringement to switch networks and then access or load a copy of software that is stored in RAM. This seems very specific, but some operators have argued that by putting in a clause in a user agreement that forbids switching networks, those who do so could infringe by then accessing software stored in memory.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the bill addresses the claims that fixing the DMCA would violate trade agreements (we've heard seven different trade agreements would be violated with this simple fix of the DMCA) by telling the President that Congress says he needs to fix those agreements. Nice and simple:

The President shall take the necessary steps to secure modifications to applicable bilateral and multilateral trade agreements to which the United States is a party in order to ensure that such agreements are consistent with the amendments made by this Act.

This is actually really important. Because (just watch) copyright maximalists love to scream about how changes like this would "violate our international obligations" (while leaving out the fact that they were the ones who wrote half of those agreements in the first place). But the fact is that Congress has authority over international trade, not the executive branch. So if Congress wants, as would be the case with this bill, it can order the executive branch to change or fix any international agreements that get in the way of good law.

from the about-time dept

A bunch of companies (including us) and public interest groups all came together this week to ask Congress to hold hearings to look into fixing the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions, and to recognize that any law that says you don't actually own what you've bought is a big problem. It focuses mainly on the problems with mobile phone unlocking, but asks Congress to go further than just a duct taped fix, and to actually explore why the cell phone unlocking problem came about and to fix the real root cause: an anti-circumvention provision that prevents people from making use of products they've actually bought.

In the longer term, we believe that the widespread concern about cell phone
unlocking illustrates how these parts of the DMCA can interfere with consumer rights and
competition policy. This interference is not limited to the realm of mobile communications
devices. Congress must take action to ensure that laws and policies are keeping up with the
pace of technological change. Not addressing these questions will stunt advances in access to
digital media for people with disabilities and may prevent new innovations and competitive
uses for emerging devices, as uncertainties around the law and the three-year cycle creates a
chilling effect for individuals, businesses, innovators and investors who may be covered by
the law.

To that end, we request that as the leadership of the two committees of jurisdiction,
you convene hearings this year to investigate these possible reforms to the anticircumvention
provisions of the DMCA in order to begin a thorough discussion of these problems.

Actually getting Congress to care about this may take some work, but it is a key issue if the US really wants to remain competitive with other countries. Furthermore, anyone who claims that we can't fix this part of the DMCA because of international obligations is really only demonstrating why IP issues shouldn't be a part of any trade agreement.

from the fix-it-now dept

While we were certainly happy that the White House came out in favor of allowing mobile phone unlocking, we were dismayed that they said the fix was to apply a narrow change to telco law. That's bizarre, because the whole problem came out of copyright law -- specifically the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause, 17 USC 1201. We've long argued that the anti-circumvention clause was a huge problem. It makes any attempt at circumvention of DRM or other "technical protection measures" illegal, even if the content being unlocked would not violate copyright law. That's really incredible when you think about it. Bypassing DRM on public domain material, for example, would still be considered infringing under 1201. Yikes!

So it's great to see a new campaign kick off, called FixTheDMCA.org, entirely focused on the problem of Section 1201.

While many in the tech community like to complain about the entire DMCA, it's important to remember that some of the DMCA was actually quite good: setting up things like clearly defined safe harbors that separate platforms and services from the actions of their users was a necessary step in creating the web that we know and love today. The problems with the DMCA are with both section 1201 and with the notice and takedown provisions (shoot first, confirm later), and both of those should be fixed. So it's good to see this effort under way, specifically targeted at the anti-circumvention clause.

Unfortunately, this may be the hardest part of the DMCA to fix. For reasons that still aren't entirely clear to me, Hollywood is obsessed with anti-circumvention clauses. They demand them in every new copyright law being put in place around the globe. It's the one part of Canada's new copyright law that was most troubling. Anywhere you see new copyright laws popping up, you're almost certain to see anti-circumvention clauses. It's one of those things that the entertainment industry insists on, and simply won't budge over. I still don't understand why they're so insistent on it, since it really seems to only harm legitimate buyers, and do next to nothing to stop actual infringement.

Hopefully, as people realize that Section 1201 leads to ridiculous situations like not being able to unlock your mobile phone, we can start to get Congress to recognize that the anti-circumvention clauses are a problem that needs fixing, and a site like FixtheDMCA is a good place to start.